Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Two stories in the news offer contrasting approaches by Web companies to
questions of free speech. First YouTube: reader skraps notes that the Google
property has recently banned the popular atheist commentator Nick
Gisburne. Gisburne had been posting videos with logical arguments
against Christian beliefs; but when he
turned his attention to Islam (mirror of Gisburne's video by another
user), YouTube pulled the plug, saying: 'After being flagged by members
of the YouTube community, and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below
has been removed due to its inappropriate nature. Due to your repeated
attempts to upload inappropriate videos, your account now been
permanently disabled, and your videos have been taken down.' Amazon.com
provides a second example of how to react to questions of free speech.
Reader theodp sends along a story in
TheStreet.com about how Amazon hung up
on customers wanting to comment on its continuing practice of
selling animal-fighting magazines. The article notes that issues of free
speech are rarely cut-and-dried, and that Amazon is doing itself no
favors by going
up against the Humane Society. Update: 02/11 04:25 GMT by
KD: updated Nick
Gisburne link to new account.

Doesn't surprise me that someone who criticizes religion gets censored. After all, religious ideas are completely sacred and can't possibly be questioned by anyone. That would be progress, and progress is WRONG.

Funny, if you go back a few more centuries, folks in power were doing this to Christians just for being Christian. It isn't about what one believes in, it comes down to who is in power and how they exercise it. Sadly, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So when a bunch of Christians happened to be at the helm of Europe, if anyone was trying to combat them in even the mildest of ways, they were punished, and sometimes this meant death. The fallacy so many love adhere to is that that somehow all Christians in 1000 AD or so were murdering crazies. Of course this is completely erroneous. But it makes for a great uninformed point that plays to the incompetence ignorance of many.

I know this is Slashdot, but did you read the summary? This Gisburne fellow posted quite a few videos about Christianity without any problems. It was only when he posted them against Islam that it became a problem, and that because a number of users flagged it. I'm guessing that what we are seeing here is not protection of religion, but protection is Islam - which Americans have an awkward relationship with right now due to the quandary posed by having a significant (and peaceful) Muslim minority while fighting against any number of predominantly-Muslim foes in the name of fighting terrorism. As you can see, it's the sort of fight that political correctness (in all its self-righteous glory) demands.

Someone needs to start a new religion that can speak freely - and as a religion it will be protected. Take down notices can be vehemently fought on religious grounds. Fight fire with fire, as it were.

It can't be that hard, there are plenty of made up religions that have protected status standing. I mean if Science Fiction writers can make up religions, why can Slashdotters?

How about making up a religion called Objectivity? You can have the Church of Objectivity, the members would be Objectivists, and the main tenant would be that to get to Heaven you must point out the failings of other religions.

You can tell people that this is the Word of God, because he told me so. (We were having lunch one day, at Hooters. He hadn't been here for a while, and He actually snorted milkshake out of his nose when I described to him the current dogma and beliefs of the predominant religions of the world.)

1. In the beginning Man created God; and in the image of Man created he him.2. And Man gave unto God a multitude of names, that he might be Lord over all the earth when it was suited to Man.3. And on the seven millionth day Man rested and did lean heavily on his God and saw that it was good.

Someone needs to start a new religion that can speak freely - and as a religion it will be protected. Take down notices can be vehemently fought on religious grounds. Fight fire with fire, as it were...

Unless you start decapitating people, no one is going to take you seriously. No one takes christians seriously now that they no longer set fire to people who disagree with them.

Such a religion already exists: Pastafarianism [venganza.org]. Or, at least, if free speech isn't already one of its tenets, it's a young enough religion that I'm sure they'd add it if you asked nicely. rAmen!

I'm guessing that what we are seeing here is not protection of religion, but protection is Islam

I dunno, they might just be covering their asses, like in the 90s, when the card game "Jihad" was renamed "Vampire" because some people pointed out that if they didn't rename it, they'd learn the true meaning of the word.

That is the point exactly. All the anti-Christian bigotry, like the posts here that just assumed that Christianity was the focus of the story because it "is" stupid, patriarchal, evil, stoned or burned people at the stake (hundreds of years ago, and don't pull up an isolated incident or two to say it still happens), feels no fear to express their opinion. They do of Islam, because a significant minority threatens or uses violence any time they feel Islam was insulted. For example, during the controversy of the Danish publishing some cartoons poking fun at Islam Islamic protestors carried signs like "Behead those who insult Islam".
So this incident has nothing to do with religious freedom of speech and everything with Islamic radicals inhibiting freedom of speech through fear. Sadly, too many of the people here and other places that claim to be so for freedom of speech and expression stay qiuet or even support Islmalic radicals suppressing it. Usually because the west was colonial at one time or because Chimpy McHitler is still Us president.

This Gisburne fellow posted quite a few videos about Christianity without any problems. It was only when he posted them against Islam that it became a problem, and that because a number of users flagged it. I'm guessing that what we are seeing here is not protection of religion, but protection is Islam.

South Park has lampooned a multitude of religions since the first season. Last year Comedy Central (owned by Viacom) forced them to remove the image of Mohammad from an episode.

Indeed, the Mohammad episode concluded with a purposely blasphemous hodge-podge of Jesus crapping on people and the like. Comedy Central let it through. (The cut Mohammad scene was an innocuous three-second clip of Mohammad handing a guy a fish.) When the usual folks complained about the depictions of Jesus they were making South Park's point for them - there wouldn't be a violent retaliation for the completely disgusting and inflammatory images they had portrayed.

The irony is that in the Cruelty in the Quran video the article is referring to, what's being presented are not quotes, but paraphrases. I took the liberty of looking up some of them, and although you can see where Gisbourne is getting his paraphrase, I'm not sure that he's always correct.

For example, one of the slides at 5:06 references Sura 28:62-64. In my copy of (Yusuf Ali translation) the Quran, it is apparent that Gisbourne went ahead and helpfully replaced "them" with "Christians". Looking at the passage, it doesn't even appear to me that this is a correct paraphrase since I think Muhammad was addressing polytheists, not Christians. But I'm not an expert, so I don't know. Either way, Gisbourne made a logic jump there.

English-language translations of the Quran vary so widely that Islam doesn't accept them as translations, they are all regarded as paraphrases. You should read this short article [soundvision.com] to get a feel for how the various translations make errors.

Here are some other translations of that same verse (Al-Qasas 28:62):

Khalifa: The day will come when He calls upon them, saying, "Where are those idols you had set up beside Me?"

Pickthall: On the day when He will call unto them and say: Where are My partners whom ye imagined?

Shakir: And on the day when He will call them and say: Where are those whom you deemed to be My associates?

Sher Ali: And on that day HE will call to them, and say, `Where are those whom you allege to be my associates?'

Yusuf Ali: That Day (God) will call to them, and say "Where are my 'partners'?- whom ye imagined (to be such)?"

English-language translations of the Quran vary so widely that Islam doesn't accept them as translations, they are all regarded as paraphrases.

If the Koran has a meaning, it can be translated, and of the millions of English-speaking Muslims in the world there must be a few who are up to the job of translating it correctly.

The variations between the examples you give are small and in any case doctrinally relatively trivial. I'd be more interested in seeing the various translations of things like 3:118, the gist of which is: "Do not be friends with unbelievers. They all hate you." Or 2:222-224, which has some pretty harsh things to say about women, likening them to fields that a man can go into any any time he chooses.

The difficulty of translation always gets raised any time anyone mentions any of the terrible things the Koran actually says that Muslims and Muslim sympathizers would like it not to say. It gets tiresome, particularly as it always gets raised as if it were a new and interesting issue instead of an old and tired one. Muslims have been complaining about this for decades. Don't you think its about time that some Muslim leaders got together and produced an authorized edition? Bible translations vary widely too, and there are a few cases where even good translations differ on substantive matters, but the gist of the sentiment is almost always clear: God loves everyone, unbelievers will burn forever in hell, stuff like that. It isn't self-consistent, but there is no major problem with what the text actually says. Whereas no one seems to agree on even the basic sense of the most trivial passages in the Koran.

Of course, for Muslims to get together and produce an authorized translation would first require Muslims to get together, which is something they appear to have a lot of trouble doing for purposes other than burning embassies because they have been offended by some silly cartoon ~0:-{=

The variations between the examples you give are small and in any case doctrinally relatively trivial. I'd be more interested in seeing the various translations of things like 3:118, the gist of which is: "Do not be friends with unbelievers. They all hate you."

Khalifa: O you who believe, do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm; they even wish to see you suffer.

Pickthall: O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they

If the Koran has a meaning, it can be translated, and of the millions of English-speaking Muslims in the world there must be a few who are up to the job of translating it correctly.... The difficulty of translation always gets raised any time anyone mentions any of the terrible things the Koran actually says that Muslims and Muslim sympathizers would like it not to say. It gets tiresome, particularly as it always gets raised as if it were a new and interesting issue instead of an old and tired one. Muslims have been complaining about this for decades. Don't you think its about time that some Muslim leaders got together and produced an authorized edition?

Subtle gradations of meaning can be lost during translation. The fact they you don't know this simply shows that you haven't done a lot of translation, especially of ancient languages. Jews don't consider translations of the Koran as authoritative (or even "holy", in any sense) for exactly this reason. The same is true of many Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist texts. For example, any "serious" student of Taoism is expected to learn ancient Chinese.

Bible translations vary widely too, and there are a few cases where even good translations differ on substantive matters, but the gist of the sentiment is almost always clear

No it isn't. There are often radical differences in translations which can lead to serious doctrinal differences. Part of the split between Protestant and Catholic has to do with the interpretation of various passages. You're coming from the perspective of an unbeliever to whom such fine distinctions don't matter. They do to Christians.

And you also don't seem to recognize the awesome effort put into translating the Bible into English by Christians. Literally BILLIONS of USD has been spent, and literally centuries of effort. There certainly ARE English translations of the Koran, it's just that they aren't as precise as the Bible translations because nowhere near as much effort has been spent translating them and there is less incentive to do so as the Islamic academic culture strongly prefers study of the Koran in Arabic (see above). I find it unlikely that Islamic scholars are going to risk the integrity of the Koran by altering this culture.

No it isn't. There are often radical differences in translations which can lead to serious doctrinal differences. Part of the split between Protestant and Catholic has to do with the interpretation of various passages. You're coming from the perspective of an unbeliever to whom such fine distinctions don't matter. They do to Christians.

I know of know differences in translation that make any significant differences to doctrine between mainstream Christian sects. And while interpretation was an issue between

The mere act of not explaining or not being transparent about what content is permitted and which is not permitted based on arbitrary rules is enough for intelligent consumers to make a very informed choice.

Those that want to make the choice should add "youtube.com 127.0.0.1" to their operating system's "host" or DNS files.

So some people are trying to silence magazines about a subject they object to, and Amazon refuses to be intimidated or allow them to intimidate others on their property. Sounds more like a good way to handle free speech to me.

I have to agree.Even though I may not agree with the material, it's the Humane Society that appears to be violating free speech here. Just because you find something objectionable does not mean you have the right to deny it to someone else.

As for Amazon hanging up on them, well, you have the right to voice an objection but that doesn't mean they have to listen. If Amazon was deleting comments or otherwise preventing people from making their opinions known, that might be a case for freedom of speech... but a

As for Amazon hanging up on them, well, you have the right to voice an objection but that doesn't mean they have to listen. If Amazon was deleting comments or otherwise preventing people from making their opinions known, that might be a case for freedom of speech...

Well, no. Amazon can within very broad limits decide what gets said and not on their site. "Free speech" is not a right you have on private property. They could pull most any kind of comments at impunity and your rights would pretty much extend to taking your comment business elsewehere.

Of course, the Human Society is claiming the material is illegal, and if that's true it adds a whole other aspect to the situation - but I don't know enough about whatever laws may apply so I can't comment on that.

More to the point, the Humane Society is not the arbiter of what is legal and not. And Amazon is not the publisher of the material. If the Humane Society has issues with the legality, they should get in contact with the police or a prosecutor, and address the magazine publishers, not Amazon.

They're just using harassment as a way to stop ideas they don't like - which, in the long run, probably harms their cause more than it helps. I'm very much against blood sport, but right now I feel like laying down a bet on a dogfight just to spite these hateful morons.

The way I understand it (which may be flawed), when Wal-Mart caves in, it caves in to market pressures. When they 'censor,' they are censoring what they are willing to sell, not what the artist can produce. Wal-Mart's refusal to push somebody else's idea of art does not constitute censorship, despite what your article says.

Your link makes it sound as though there's some Church Lady in the back of every Wal-Mart Distribution Center who is bleeping out the F-Bombs on each individual CD that comes her way. And her neighbor with an airbrush, blurring out all the nasty cover art. No, they come to Wal-Mart pre-censored, and not by Wal-Mart executives. If you want to blam someone, blame the artists who are willing to violate their artistic integrity for the sales boost they get from having their albums sold at Wal-Mart.

Don't kid yourself. Amazon doing what they think is best for themselves, as is Wal-Mart.

When they 'censor,' they are censoring what they are willing to sell, not what the artist can produce. Wal-Mart's refusal to push somebody else's idea of art does not constitute censorship, despite what your article says.

Yes it is. Since they command such a large portion of the market, they can say 'we demand sanitized versions of your music' and get their way more often than not. Since the publisher is already producing one version, there's a good chance they'll abandon the more faithful recording with

Maybe now some of the Google is wonderful nonsense will stop. Censoring people on religious grounds qualifies as being evil in my book. Of course, after Google sold to out to please the Chinese government, it was clear Google had decided that greed was a better motive than not being evil.

will have its great people and bad apples. I haven't lost hope in Google in terms of being a fairly morally-conscious company, but I do realize in such a massive company there'll be people (like the Gootube staff member who deleted this dudes vids) who don't match the same level of morality (in this case, for freedom of speech).

While there is Google playing up to China, and other such "evil" things, Google in my book is much better than Yahoo or other companies in terms of policy. This situation it was on

Private parties can do as they please. You have *NO* constitutional right to say what you want on their services. It may not be "nice" to do, but no one can stop them from doing this.
Your right may vary by state, though.

Welcome to government by contract. The police can't search and seize without a warrant, but they can hire "independent" contractors with guns to come and kick down your door as you please. The government can't listen to your phonecalls, but they can pay AT&T millions to find out what they hear when they listen. The president can't declare war on his own, but he can hire mercenaries to fight wars for him.

Freedom of speech doesn't imply freedom to slander, libel or incite. It rather means freedom to discuss any topic in a dry, boring, responsible, sane, adult, philosophical manner.

Yeah, and that's what the video apparently was doing. I mean, how does showing a sequence of direct quotes from the main religious text--nothing more--amount to "slander, libel, or incitement"?

In fact, the problem here is on the side of the religious nuts: they are offended by any criticism of their religion. Should we limit free speech according to whether the target of criticism is offended? I don't think so.

Ah, a bit of digging reveals that the original quote is from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a Supreme Court Justice 1902-1932. The original quote was "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Unless the service is gov't regulated, like telephone lines. Common carrier status and all that. The telephone companies (at least the landlines) are not allowed to censor anything that goes over their lines. OTOH, without net neutrality, the telcos could very well examine packets and try to censor packets that are part of hate speech (or really anything they want to censor, like fluffy blue bunnies) with no legal repercussions. IANAL.

Mod parent up! He's exactly right. Youtube can't afford to lose the safe harbor
provisions as defined in the DMCA [wikipedia.org],
or it will open itself up to massive copyright infringement claims.

Any large community site like Youtube is full of copyrighted material, which means
it is committing massive copyright infringement by allowing people to download those
materials. The DMCA says (paraphrased) "don't look closely at what's on your site, and pull down promptly anything
that someone claims is theirs, if you obey those rules then you can't be sued".

So it's wrong to say that Youtube can do whatever they like simply because it's their private site.
They can of course, but only if they don't care about being massively sued.

Private parties can do as they please. You have *NO* constitutional right to say what you want on their services.

Thanks for saying this. I remember years ago when The
Last Temptation of Christ [imdb.com] was in theaters, it was
controversial where I lived (Dallas, TX), and theaters
were picketed. Some chose not to show it, and others
cried "censorship!" when this happened.

Looking back on it, it was probably pointless and stupid
to picket the theaters, and I think it was wrong for anyone
to demand that theaters

If Google wants to provide a public forum in the form of YouTube, it's better if they don't censor the videos there on the basis of topic. They are legally required to censor certain content (pornography involving animals or children). They are socially expected to censor other content (any other porn and certain extreme violence). Beyond that, they deserve a raft of shit for any censorship - not because they don't have the right to control their content, but because the public forum is much more useful if they allow it to be used.

You have to remember this -- there is no guarantee of free speech from any corporation. The US Constitution guarantees that "government" shall not infringe the right to a citizen's free speech. Any time you have a non-governmental agency "it doesn't apply".

Amazon can cut off anyone they wish, so can Google. Google is not obligated to do a damn thing concerning free speech. They can censor anyone they want because they are a corporation, not the government. The law/Constitution isn't going to protect someone from posting in a forum/newsgroup ran by Google. Too bad, that's what you accept when you post in Google's forum/newsgroup; a place owned by essentially a private party.

The only repercussions from something like this (private censorship) is the free market system. Boycott, attention getting, etc. But you can't force them to make them accept your free speech.

You have to remember this -- there is no guarantee of free speech from any corporation.

That's because everyone perpetually equates "free speech" with "censorship". Censorship CAN be a violation of your right to free speech, but not always- and this case is a perfect example. Others say that censorship cannot be done by a corporation; that's also wrong. Everything you watch on TV is run past network censors. Anything you watch in the movie theater, also (most likely) run past censors.

Youtube's actions are censorship. They are not violation of anyone's "free speech" rights. Nothing stops the gent in question from posting his commentary on his own website, or publishing commentary in any number of forms of other media (for example, printing a booklet or printing a newsletter.) If the government comes knocking on his door and takes his computer and printer and says, "You can't print this, Muslims don't like it", that is a violation of his right to free speech.

Actually, they have a constitutional right not to publish or host content, it's called the right of free press. Google, Amazon and any other companies owned by private individuals have the right to publish or not publish whatever they want and to force them to host or publish a message or a video would actually infringe on their (or more precisely their shareholder's) first amendment rights.

Corporations have the right to censor people. And we have the right to tell other people about it, and if we choose, "vote with our money" based on what those corporations do. Ain't free speech grand?As a practical matter, I don't want any big entity telling me what not to say. I don't want the government doing it, or Google doing it, or a church doing it, or even Slashdot doing it. And in cases of censorship by anyone, it is always appropriate to fight back. If it's the government, you fight back on t

That is all well and good, but hosting large numbers of videos requires considerable capital outlay. This is a barrier to entry into the market which ensures that there wont be sufficient competition.If all of the newspapers in a country are owned by a small group of people, and they collude, then that is no different from a state newspaper.

At present there are enough competitors to YouTube to ensure this guy can take his content elsewhere. While this remains the case, your arguement holds. However, this ki

If YouTube decides that a video is offensive to a segment of its users, then it has every right to remove the video. Expecting free speech protection from a private entitity is a bit absurd. The local mall would throw my ass on the street if I stood inside protesting leather products.

"Amazon hung up on customers wanting to comment on its continuing practice of selling animal-fighting magazines"

i've dealt with animal protection fanatics before, and i know this statement is misleading bullshit. a more accurate picture of the situation would that be one of them would have rung up and abused the service rep over the phone and they had no choice but to hang up on them. manners and due process don't ever occur to people like this who try take the moral high ground. while i am against animal

Okay, apparently half the posters don't understand what Freedom of Speech is all about. Google and Amazon are not the government (yet at least). The first amendment protects you from the government taking away your rights, not corporations and individuals. So what if Google removed a video, it's their property that he's posting it on. If they don't like something, they have a right to remove it. To say they don't have this right, would be like saying if someone put up a political sign in your yard of someone from the party you don't support, that you don't have a right to remove it because you're violating someone else's free speech.

As for the Amazon case, sure, you have a right to call and complain. Nothing says that Amazon has to actually listen to you.

In the end, these aren't issues of free speech. These are people getting their panties in a knot because someone wouldn't listen to them.

The founders flat-out messed up because they had no idea that big business would have the power it has today. They had no idea that the internet would put the ability to curtain free speech in the hand of corporations rather than the government.

Had they known that, I suspect rather strongly that they would have phrased the Bill of Rights differently.

The rights of corporations are secondary to the rights of individuals.

Posting videos to a website isn't a "right", it's a freebie offered by a corporation so that they can make revenue by showing ads alongside the video. Saying you have the "right" to post to YouTube is like saying that you have the "right" to get a free toy when you buy Cheerios.

In what way, exactly, is Google taking away somebody's rights? Please, I'd like to know.

Exactly what right is a corporation or person taking away from you when it decides to hang up on your phone call? Surely you do not have a right to force someone else to listen to your speech.

Similarly with Youtube. There isn't anything in the Constitution that guarantees you the right to use somebody else's web site, printing press or megaphone to distribute your viewpoint. Such a concept would in fact infringe on other rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Constitional ban on bills of attainder. You can speak all you want - how you get your message to others is YOUR problem, not someone else's just because they have an jim-dandy established distribution channel that you might want to use to put forth your opinion because it would be a lot more work for you to build your own distribution channel.

The founders certainly DID NOT mean to abrogate property rights when they cast the First Amendment. Just because Youtube is a convenient forum you are not suddenly granted an inalienable right to use it however you want irrespective of the rights of the owners. If you want to get your message out there is no guarantee by anyone that they have to pay out (Youtube like any other web site has to pay for the bandwidth it uses) to give you a free ride for your crackpot theories.

Your concept of corporate power holding back your free speach is also ridiculous. Exactly what is Youtube doing that prevents you from setting up your own web site and publicizing it? Nothing.

They had no idea that the internet would put the ability to curtain free speech

Exactly what does the internet do to curtain(sic) free speach? To me it looks like it does exactly the opposite. $8.95 for a domain name and $10/month for a hosting package and you can spout off in almost unlimited fashion. In fact never before has it been as easy to get out whatever outlandish idea you might have.

Had they known that, I suspect rather strongly that they would have phrased the Bill of Rights differently.

In exactly what way? Even in the days of the Founders channels of distribution like the press were owned by individuals. In fact since such channels were more limited than what we have now it was much harder to get an idea out without significant financial backing.

The rights of corporations are secondary to the rights of individuals.

Poppycock. The two are exaactly the same. Corporations are the private property of individuals. By threating the two differently you are depriving these individuals of their property rights without due legal process as guaranteed by the Constitution. Forcing a corporation by law to carry your video is EXACTLY the same thing as forcing Joe Smith to pay a tax that will give you financial support for your package of wacko ideas. The idea is totally unacceptable and contrary to all basic ideas of life in modern society.

Amazon has a right to sell that filth if they so choose. I also have the right not to shop there, and to tell everybody I know that they condone this sick shit. I still don't see what this has to do with free speech.

Come on, this should be a no-brainer. Google, Youtube and Amazon are privately owned, privately administered and privately funded organizations. They are no more obligated to keep the videos of controversial speakers on line, or engage in conversation with people who have animal-rights concerns than anyone is obligated to read this post, or Slashdot is obligated to prevent it from being deleted. There is no contract implied here beyond a social one; said speaker can take his videos to other sites, and people who have a problem with Amazon selling cock-fighting magazines can take their business elsewhere. If Slashdot banned me for whatever reason, I could continue to post on Kuro5, or Digg, or any other equally private site that would let me in.

OK, I think I get the gist of the OP but let me see if I get this straight.

You can make a movie called White Guys can't Jump but you can't make a movie called Black Guys can't swim (fill in swim with whatever).

You can make "logical arguments" against Christianity. You can even make jokes about the religion and it's Members.

But as soon as you breath a word against the Muslims you are silenced.

We have a new minority in America. It's call the muslims. Please, if you are a male white American, add to your list of people not to offend: the Muslims. But remember, anyone can publicly deride the whites, males, christians but never speak ill of the jews, muslims, blacks (oh shit! sorry -- African American), mexicans, or anyone else who didn't have an ancestoral basis in North Western Europe along the paternal lines of the family tree.

It's getting kind of crazy around here with all the people who are demanding both freedom of speech and respect for their own beliefs.

You haven't been paying attention. Anti-semitism, Holocaust Denial and outright jew hatred are now pretty much mainstream on sites like Daily Kos and DU. So as long as you are a deranged leftie Jews are now in season. Best I can figure they have decided that if they throw Israel under the bus the terrorists will stop hating us. Pathetic if you ask me, but I'm just a right wing reactionary neocon.

Sorry if this is too much truthiness, but when I have to pick sides in th

A lot of people here have noted that free speech does not
extend to corporate America. Quite true - no one has a right
to speak on youtube. But the interesting question is why
does google choose to exercise their corporate prerogative
so as to permit anti-Christian argumentation but not anti-
Islam argumentation. This does intrigue me. I haven't seen
either the anti-Christian or the (now banned) anti-Islam
videos. Is there a real difference that would explain why
the former is welcome on youtube but the latter is forbidden?
There are a great many arguments revealing the fundamental
irrationality of both religions. I don't see why google would
not welcome both.

Amazon is actually being nice if all they do when someone calls to complain about what they carry is hang up. If it were me, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself, and I'd phrase it just that way.I object highly to forcing animals to fight for entertainment. I think it should be illegal in all of the US (currently, cock fighting is pefectly legal in at least two states (New Mexico and Mississippi, if I'm not mistaken).

But I find censorship even more objectionable than that. And when a group like the Humane So

It's not the free speech, it's the hypocrisy. It's OK to bag Christianity, but not Islam? WTF is up with that?

I can tell you: Christianity is used to being harrassed, and Christianity has shown itself to be nothing, if not resilient to this kind of thing. Whereas Islam is extremely poor at handling criticism; you might find yourself dead, burned, having some bizarre rushdie-like death sentence on you, or being chased by a bunch of brainwashed muslims.

So no, you CAN'T make fun of Islam or point out the stupidity of living 14th century dogma in the 21st century.

It's telling too, because a confident religion doesn't care what is said about it. Witness what's been said about Christianity! No, it's only a scared religion which reacts poorly to criticism - and the main reason (I maintain) is because even "devout" Muslims KNOW that what they've been told is a load of stinking horse shit, but it is impossible to speak out against it.

Loud voices openly criticising Islam might start the tide against Islam, and that would result in the modernisation of that religion, and those who currently hold the power in Islam would see their power vanish almost instantly. So this issue continues to be about the power Islam wields over women, and other people. It's certainly got nothing to do with religion per se, in my view.

I remember, a week or two after september 11th, me and my father were riding our bikes down the road, and a minivan driver asks us for direction. He was dark skinned, and the first thing he said to us was "Please, I am not an Arab." Can you believe that? The area I live in is fairly culturally and racially diverse, and seems in no way discriminatory, yet this man thought he had to say he was not of a certain race to talk to us safely.

Arabs and Islam have been demonized for ages, and more so now in this "po

I don't recall thousands of Christians taking to the streets and burning everything in sight when the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There" came out. Hell, the documentary received very little media attention at all. I bet it would be very different if they made a documentary named "The Holy Prophet Who Wasn't There". You didn't see Jews burn down Iranian embassies whenever Amedinijad made holocaust denying remarks. But hundreds of people died in riots and Danish embassies were burned down just because a Danish newspaper made some cartoons in bad taste. Yeah, I guess Muslims must be "pretty fucking pissed" over something so minor as cartoons. I'd hate to see what would happen if someone made an anti-Islam documentary or if a prominent politician publicly insulted Islam.

"Can you prove that, assuming that that is true, that it is indeed a facet of the respective religions, and not the persecution of Muslims (don't tell me there isn't any)?"

Islamic countries have practiced institutionalized religious intolerance against unbelievers long before any decently founded complaint of "oppression" could be launched. (I.e. British and French (semi-)occupation of the non-Saudi ME between roughly 1920-1946 after the Ottoman empire collapsed. Also, the brunt of Islamic intolerance is not directed at westerners, but at any indigenous apostates.

"because of the actions of a few"

Well, the Talibs weren't *that* few. The idiots in the White House who thought the Iraq war was a good idea were indeed initially rather few in number though.

"the Christian world is bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan"

For the last couple of years, most of the bombing has been from various indigenous groups that blast the crap out of each other for religous and / or ethnic reasons. Mass bombing is not presently seen as an effective counterinsurgency tactic. (It can work, but it causes too much bad press)

I can tell you: Christianity is used to being harrassed, and Christianity has shown itself to be nothing, if not resilient to this kind of thing. Whereas Islam is extremely poor at handling criticism; you might find yourself dead, burned, having some bizarre rushdie-like death sentence on you, or being chased by a bunch of brainwashed muslims.

This has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with Western secularism. You can thank ATHEISTS like Thomas Paine for the freedom of religion we enjoy in the West.

Christians INVENTED the concept of "heresy", murdering people who believe very slightly differently than the way you do. The Catholic church became the dominate Christian sect by slaughtering everyone else. Christianity, much like Islam, has spread almost entirely through the sword. "Convert or die" has been the Christian mantra since at least the 4th century.

Everyone here is missing the context. YouTube has been banning anti-Muslim videos much more often than anti-Christian videos because the anti-Muslim videos have been MUCH more offensive and racist. Videos accusing Muslims of raping children, using children as suicide bombers, claims that all Muslims are suicide bombers, graphics of Muslims murdering Christians and Jews, truly offensive depictions of Mohammed (like graphics of Mohammed raping children), calling Arabs "towel heads" and "sand niggers", etc. Similar video simply has not been posted anywhere NEAR as often with Christianity and other religions, but when it is, it's banned too.

And this hasn't happened just once, it's happened thousands of times. YouTube has rules against posting offensive and racist videos. I haven't seen the video that was banned, but even assuming it was fairly tame one can easily see how YouTube might remove it in a knee-jerk manner.

I think the Humane Society does itself no favors by ripping apart the 1st, 9th and 14th Amendment in pursuit of its own goals. Maybe it should try convincing people not to sell or buy animal fight magazines, and cease and desist its self-serving attacks against the US Constitution.

Anyone who criticises Islam is accused of being racist, and has the full weight of Political Correctness thrust down upon them. This is utter bullshit.

It is our RIGHT to criticize ANY religion, be it in the spirit of Martin Luther, or in the spirit of Frederick Neitzche. It doesn't matter.

Now, to ban a man for making a video of quotes from a book, simply the quotes, and calling that "inappropriate hate speech", that is a fucking travesty, and a symptom of everything that's wrong with giving certain groups special treatment. It may not be a violation of any of his rights, since Youtube is a private entity, but it's still a bitter pill to swallow. A man has been silenced because quoting from a book was deemed "inappropriate".

I suppose nobody at Youtube figured that, if the quotes are inappropriate, maybe it's the author(s) of the book itself that should be blamed, and not the messenger. No, truth takes a back seat to making damned sure nobody could possibly be offended by anything.

Martin Scorsese releases a film that was mildly heretical to Christianity. Some Christians stand around with placards protesting. Some boycott his movie. Most yawned and flip the newspaper to page two.

The very same year Salman Rushdie publishes a book that is mildly heretical to Islam. He received death threats and had to go into hiding. Noted peace activist turned Mulsim, Cat "Peace Train" Stevens, affirms that Rushdie should be killed. A fatwah was issued against booksellers (I was one) selling the tome. To this day, Rushdie remains in hiding.

-----

Over a decade later another movie was released that was mildly heretical to Christianity. A bunch of Christians boycotted it. A few sermons were preached from a few pulpits. That was it. Dale Brown and Tom Hanks made a lot of money.

Near the same time, a Danish newspaper publishes some cartoons, a few of which were mildly heretical to Islam. The Islamic world threw a shit fit, and engaged in violent protest for weeks. People died. Newpapers around the world tossed out principles held since the dawn of the Enlightenment and refused to print the cartoons.

-----

An opera that is planning to portray the severed heads of religious leaders is cancelled out of fear of violence... not because of the head of Jesus, but because of the head of Mohammed.

-----

Are you beginning to see the picture? Certainly Christianity has a checkered past, but it embraced the Enlightenment and Reformation. It has moved past its sins. But Islam remains rooted in a violent medieval mindset.

I used to think it was just a small group of fanatic extremist Muslims that were the problem. But then I started to realize that mainstream Islam was not condemning the fanatics. They were being awfully quiet. Where was the outcry from mainstream Islam over suicide bombings? Where was the outcry from mainstream Islam over Hamas and PLO thuggery? Where was the outcry from mainstream Islam over Wahabism? Over femail genital mutilation? Over "honor" killings? Over the torture and murder of homosexuals?

Western Civilization needs to STOP pretending that Islam is a religion of peace. It needs to stop sheltering Islam in the blanket of political correctness. It needs to stop pretending that the camel isn't in the tent. It needs to take a break from bashing Christianity and recognize where the real danger lies.

Here is what Yusuf had to say regarding the artificial controversy generated by the British tabloids.

That could be a bit of revisionist history. Wikipedia has that quote, and some more [wikipedia.org]:

"[Rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie] I would have hoped that it'd be the real thing."

"[If Rushdie turned up at my doorstep looking for help] I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like. I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is."

Those are based on a recorded TV show, referenced by a New York Times article. I checked the New York Times reference.

And it disgusts me that foul-minded bigots such as yourself would repeat those tabloid lies about him in an attempt to discredit an entire religion.

The New York Times is not a tabloid. And the fact remains that this "kind and gentle person" believes that a man should be put to death for blasphemy, because that is what his religion tells him.

Islam is particularly not a religion that says 'turn them your other cheek' - it actually encourages retaliation against 'the infidel'. 'infidel', 'against the religion' concepts are broad, and can be reevaluated to suit anyone's wish.

hence, whereas christians wont be attacking the site, trying to ban the site in sweden, argentina, russia or anywhere, it cant be said for the muslims, especially those in arab countries. even so that the guy himself would easily be the target of attempts on his own life, if only some sheikh (curious concept, as islam does not allow priest class) showed him as a target with a 'fetva'.

it seems that youtube is covering itself from islamic intolerance, something which we experienced with the denmark cartoon event.

in middle east, and immediate nearby islamic countries, for over 50 years now, unlimited number of varied publications, some even with the hand of government, are condemning, villifying, demeaning, insulting west, western countries, their prominent contemporary and historical figures, demeaning christianity, jews, buddhism, anything you can think of that are not islam, and even insulting. they have all been doing that, or allowing that. however when not even the same thing, a much lesser offense is done in a western country, it suddenly became a scandal.

At first I thought Nick Gisburne might be this guy [youtube.com]. Fortunately, that video is still up. Hillarious and oh so telling.

That video is about Mormons, not Christians. It's true that
Mormons claim to be Christians, but that claim is very
controversial and is not accepted by most of mainstream
Christianity. There are literally thousands of different
Christian groups, and to some extent they all reject some
of the beliefs of others, but most groups accept that most
of the others are in fact Christians. The hit rate with
Mormonism, however, is very low, in both directions. That
is, most Christian groups do not accept Mormonism as a
form of Christianity, and Mormonism rejects most other
groups as well.

Of course, the question of who gets to define the term
"Christian" is a complex one, but if you let the majority
of people who apply it to themselves also be the ones who
define it, then it probably doesn't include Mormonism.

Also, one other telling difference is that most Christian
groups use only the Bible as their sacred text. Mormonism
also has the Book of Mormon, which (as I understand it) takes
precedence in case the two disagree. The only other major
difference between sacred texts within Christianity is
over the exact canonization of the books within the Bible.
Catholics have a few more than Protestants, and there are
a few other differences here and there. But this is a
comparatively minor difference: all books that Protestants
and Catholics disagree on are from the same historical time
period, and the disagreement is really more about authenticity
and authorship than anything. If you categorize groups based
on what their sacred text is, Mormonism has about as much
similarity to Christianity as Islam has.

I love how you turn an argument about the validity of Mormonism as a Christian establishment into a talk about how nice Mormons are.

As to why people don't take Mormonism seriously...well, two reasons. Everyone who's not a Christian sees the history of your church from Joe Smith on and says "Holy crap, who could fall for that? Gold plates from the ground that no one else was allowed to see? An angel named Moroni? I can't make this stuff up!" And everyone else who believes in the Bible and not the Book of Mormon takes a look at Revelation 22:18 and says "Hey! Saying that we 'misinterpreted' parts of the Bible and adding to it via the Book of Mormon is exactly what John said to look out for!"

Now I'll follow this up with a statement that I live in SLC, and know some pretty kick-ass Mormons. I'm not trying to harp on them, but really, there's enough of a schism to warrent debate about the status of Christianity. "We agree with the word of God except in the places where we disagree with him" doesn't seem, to me, to be a horridly valid argument.

Mormons believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind, as the Son of God and as the only perfect man who ever lived.

What more does it take to be called Christian? Christians are followers of Christ and Mormons follow Christ.

"Orthodox" Christians are Trinitarian and follow the Nicene Creed. Mormons do not, therefore they are not "orthodox" Christians but heretics as defined be the universal catholic church (by this I mean the Roman Catholic Church, the Coptic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and most Protestants). Mormons follow a prophet and holy texts that contradict large sections of the New Testament and who are specifically rejected by the universal catholic church as frauds.

In fact, from a doctrinal point of view, the Mormon faith sits in a very similar position as Islam. Muslims accept the validity of Jesus as a prophet, but reject the Trinity and instead follow a later prophet and his holy texts.

So Mormons are Christian pretty much in the same way that Muslims are Christian.

"Orthodox" Christians are Trinitarian and follow the Nicene Creed. Mormons do not, therefore they are not "orthodox" Christians but heretics as defined be the universal catholic church (by this I mean the Roman Catholic Church, the Coptic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and most Protestants).

I agree that Mormons are not "Orthodox" Christians as you've defined them. Mormons do however worship and follow Jesus Christ as their Savior, God, and Messiah. A Christian is simply a follower of Christ and Mormons follow Christ.

It's also quite interesting that you bring up the idea of heretics. There was a point in history where Protestants were viewed as heretics and were persecuted for their beliefs. Are they Christian? Obviously they are. Were they Christian? Obviously they were, but weren't accepted into the majority because their beliefs differed from the mainstream.

So Mormons are Christian pretty much in the same way that Muslims are Christian.

There is a difference between acknowledging Christ, and worshipping him. Muslims don't believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind, as the Son of God and as the only perfect man who ever lived.

Many Jews acknowledge Christ as a prophet, but they don't believe that he was the Messiah.

Some Buddhists see Christ as an 'enlightened individual'

Mormons are Christian because they worship and follow Christ. These other groups are not Christian because they neither follow nor worship Him.

Aye, the King James version of the Bible does have some inaccuracies in the translation, but they have been corrected in more recent versions translated from the original Gree, Aramaic, hebrew, etc. and because the original texts in the original languages are much more available to common people than in the 1600's (I believe that's the right century...), they can't exactly hide any intentional mistranslations anymore- there are enough (though not a whole lot) of people who learn the old languages that could call them out.
And I'd have to disagree with your thesis that the Red Sea scrolls would be more accurate gospels than the ones we have today, since the scrolls contained only copies of the Torah and other books which are now part of the Old Testament, and make absolutely no mention in Christ, as they were for the most part written before his ministry. They do, however confirm the accuracy of Old Testament texts to at least Jesus' time, which was heartening for Christians and Jews.
As for the Gospel of Barnabus, I have no first-hand knowledge of the text, but from what I understand it was removed because its authorship is under scrutiny, and because it goes against the whole rest of the New testament in the basic tenets of the faith- basically the equivalent of Jesus saying to love your neighbor, then turning around and commanding his disciples to stone the prostitute, a practice which although unfortunately practiced by a lot of Christians, is not really in keeping with the faith.
Oh, and I was not under the impression that Allah would have told Jesus to tell everyone he was the son of God, if he were only a prophet secondary in importance to Mohammed who would come later. Of course I also don't understand why Mohammed's followers would want to destroy those who follow another of Allah's prophets as infidels. I know the Christians haven't exactly been nice to the Muslims, what with the Crusades and all, but certain leaders inn the Muslim community do more than reciprocate- something that I'm sure is as much out of keeping with the Quran as the Crusades were with the Bible.

>>Aye, the King James version of the Bible does have some inaccuracies in the translation, but they have been corrected in more recent versions translated from the original Gree, Aramaic, hebrew, etc.

It isn't that bad. Some of the newer versions hashed out the major problems. Somethings already were well enough accepted to be unfixable. Young woman being translated into virgin, using the name of the lord in vain rather than in a false oath. NIV might be better, but when referring to inaccuracies... many of them are not translation errors. They are contradictory in the original text as well.

>>and because the original texts in the original languages are much more available to common people than in the 1600's (I believe that's the right century...),

Actually the original texts in the original languages are just as unavailable as ever. We still don't have a copy of the original, not even a copy of a copy in the right language. We have a huge number of different versions from the 4th century which differ widely from each other. We also have some earlier fragments which also differ pretty widely.

>>they can't exactly hide any intentional mistranslations anymore- there are enough (though not a whole lot)

They didn't hide them exactly. For example, 2 Samuel 21:19, typically have the version (KJV) italicize "brother of" because the words "brother of" is simply added regardless of not being in the original text. They obviously realized that Elhanan killing Goliath would clash with the same story of David killing the same person. Other translations go ahead and ignore that and have Goliath die twice (as happens in the original text).

>>And I'd have to disagree with your thesis that the Red Sea scrolls would be more accurate gospels than the ones we have today, since the scrolls contained only copies of the Torah and other books which are now part of the Old Testament

The Red Sea scrolls have less editing than the modern versions we have. Accuracy is completely different as they all pretty well depict events that we are more and more sure did not happen. Archeology tends to disagree with the Bible when the two meet.

>>and make absolutely no mention in Christ, as they were for the most part written before his ministry.

The work dates to the late first century early second century. They are all written after "Christ's ministry" (mythicist quotes) -- Though, they probably do predate the Gospels which were written mid-second century or so.

>>They do, however confirm the accuracy of Old Testament texts to at least Jesus' time, which was heartening for Christians and Jews.

They no more confirm the accuracy of the OT than finding a first printing of Great Expectations would prove the existence of Pip.

>>basically the equivalent of Jesus saying to love your neighbor, then turning around and commanding his disciples to stone the prostitute,

The "don't throw stones" story is actually added in the 4th century.

>>Oh, and I was not under the impression that Allah would have told Jesus to tell everyone he was the son of God, if he were only a prophet secondary in importance to Mohammad who would come later.

Muslims do not hold that Jesus was the son of God, nor that Allah would have told him to say such. Rather that people later made that claim as they were misguided.

>>Of course I also don't understand why Mohammed's followers would want to destroy those who follow another of Allah's prophets as infidels.

You don't? Well, because Muslims are not followers of Mohammad. They are followers of Allah. If they were worshiping Muhammad they would be idolaters. Just as worshiping any prophet of Allah would be idolatry. Further, those who deify Jesus are accused by the Koran of making "Partners unto Allah" -- beyond idolatry this is blasphemy. Both are punishable by death. A quick read of the Koran would answer these questions for you.

He made a claim about 'most denominations'. You declared him wrong, and as proof, offered one source about one denomination.I can also tell you, with certainty, that many catholics believe the bible is without error, regardless of what the official policy of the higher ups in their organization may say.

He made a claim about 'most denominations'. You declared him wrong, and as proof, offered one source about one denomination.

One denomination, which just happens to be by far the largest. I provided far more evidence than him who offered no source at all.

Other major denominations (orthodox and Anglican for example) share a similar point of view to the Catholic Church. This church on England document on training clergy [anglican.org] seems to take it for granted that there is a diversity of views on the authority of the